War Establishment - Infantry Battalions (Officers)

[Muerrisch]

Martin, thank you, I am away from my little library but have crunched Westlake, with the following constraints:

RMOs excluded where identified, which means that some 6 of RMOs might have been included in cases where Westlake only gives total of officers.

Attachees are counted in, but identified as such.

Officers shown as detached from unit to Bde etc appointments assumed detached after disembarking so included in figures.

First reinforcements rarely identified assuch so assumed included in figures.

Units are classified by month of disembarkation on the Continent.

August, 34 units with values, average 26 officers, lowest 21, next lowest 24 [3 of], highest 29 [2 of, and a 28], [3 attachees in figures]

September, 8 units with values, average 24, lowest 21, highest 26, 1 attachee in figures

October, 8 units with values, average 26, lowest 20, highest 30, 3 attachees in figures

November, 6 units with values, average 29, lowest 28 highest 31, all 9 attachees in figures.

December, 7 units with values, average 26, lowest 24, highest 28. No attachees. These units are all 27 Div.

A few tentative conclusions.

1. WE, even if temporarily amended as noted in some WD [but not traced as an AO or in any official publication] widely not met, both large plus and large minus, although an average of 26 was more or less maintained except in struggling September and bounteous November.

2. November's numbers enhanced by a spate of attachees from better off regiments.

As ever, there might be the odd error.

I will ask Graham Stewart if he can put a handle on an amendment, however temporary, to WE.

[Graham Stewart]

Changes to War Establishments appear frequently in Army Orders and in which Sections they occur, but few follow up with definative details. However I did come across this one - A.O.54 of February 1915, which did have the relevant Appendix and it concerns the re-organisation of Territorial Infantry Battalions into four Company establishments and what the Establishment would be.

I'll attach the remainder for your perusal to see whether or not it differs to that of the 1914 W.E. for an Infantry Battalion.

[Graham Stewart]

This is how changes to War Establishments are more often found in A.O.'s - A.O.392 for October 1915.

[Muerrisch]

Thank you Graham. This demonstrates that AO announced the fact of changes but often not the fine print.

Martin is there a modal date or dates when WD state there was a reduction please

[Guest]

Martin is there a modal date or dates when WD state there was a reduction please

The vast majority of diaries that recorded the order, made note on 7th August. A typical example from HQ 5th Inf Bde War Diary:

7th August 1914. 3rd day of mobilization. War Office ordered all units to send 1 Capt, 2 Subalterns, 2 Serving Sgts and 11 Sgts and Cpls (who might be reservists) to the Depot to form the nucleus of some new units to be raised.

Note the detail that at least 2 had to be regular serving NCOs and Sgts to boot.

there are a few out-liers on 8th,9th 10th and 11th but the wording could be interpreted as reporting what had happened on previous dates. Units in every division recorded the order although in some Brigades none did. It seems highly unlikely that only some Brigades were told and others were not. There are examples where the order was not recorded but the nominal roll of the Officers would imply they had received it as they deployed with 26 Officers etc...

Let us not lose sight of the OP. This is about whether figures of 35-36 were WE for the BEF. I am fairly confident they were not and the AOs that Graham posted (many thanks by the way) seem to indicate that WE for Officers in Feb 1915 was 29 + MO, so it appears the reduction to 26 + MO was never permanent. In reality once the attrition started battalion officer casualty rates typically outstripped the War Office's ability to supply replacement officers fast enough in 1914 - or ORs for that matter.

It is possible the battalions light of Officers simply did not record the reduction as they were not up to 26 Officers. One battalion (2nd Suffolks) records needing 8 Officers from the Special Reserve to come up to war establishment. I wonder in these cases whether the order was simply not recorded as there was nothing to do but wait for more Officers to arrive. My speculation. MG

[Guest]

A few tentative conclusions.

1. WE, even if temporarily amended as noted in some WD [but not traced as an AO or in any official publication] widely not met, both large plus and large minus, although an average of 26 was more or less maintained except in struggling September and bounteous November.

If WE was 29 and a reduction of 3 implies 26, and the average of your sample is 26, my conclusion would be that it was largely met.

Looking at Westlake and comparing with the diaries and histories I think Westlake might occasionally confuse mobilization strength/nominal rolls with embarkation rolls. There are a few examples of battalions listing the Officers who mobilized. Westlake is rather keen on listing named officers and I think some of his rolls for embarkation are not quite right as they are in fact mobilization rolls.

I am flat out on other stuff but I will produce a spreadsheet giving chapter and verse on the numbers, dates, sources. I have a master spreadsheet which has lots of mobilization data such as location, strength pre War, theoretical requirements to come to WE, Reservists received, ditto officers, Reservists sent back, ditto officers, unfits, etc, so it is something I needed to add.

Exercises such as these expose the huge variations in the standards of record keeping at different battalions.

[Guest]

Looking one level up at Brigade HQ diaries there is plenty of evidence that the order was received and acted on. There are letters from Brigade HQs 'in accordance with paragraph 204, mobilization regulations ...etc" reporting the nominal roll of Officers and men (dated 5th Aug) so it seems the War Office was receiving very detailed lists of who was going to embark. MG

[Guest]

Some numbers from 7th and 8th Divs on disembarkation:

7th Div - three battalions* recorded numbers: 29, 30 and 31 (the last figure includes the 2nd Bn Scots Guards which took an assistant adjutant)

8th Div - seven battalions** recorded numbers: 29 plus MO (3 instances) and 30 plus MO (4 instances).

Which suggests the reduction of three Officers did not last beyond mid September when the 6th Div deployed. 7th Div disembarked 6th-7th Oct and 8th Div disembarked 5th-7th Nov 1914.

MG

* 3 battalions o 12 = 24% recording the fact

** 7 battalions of 12 = 58% recording the fact.

over 42% recording the change across these two Divisions, so slightly higher than my estmate that a third made note of the change. MG

[Perth Digger]

Martin

Re your #24 and MICs not always aligning with other sources for Guards.

I spent a long time trying to work out to which Grenadier battalion 2nd Lt MKA Lloyd was attached when he left England on 4/10/1914, according to his MIC. He is not mentioned in Ponsonby's list of officers at all, nor in the incomplete war diaries. In fact, according to his service record, he was attached to the 1/Grenadiers in 7th Division, but was almost immediately reattached to the 7th Cyclist Company. HIs MIC was therefore accurate, but there are no official and public papers to say where he went.

Mike

[Guest]

Martin

Re your #24 and MICs not always aligning with other sources for Guards.

I spent a long time trying to work out to which Grenadier battalion 2nd Lt MKA Lloyd was attached when he left England on 4/10/1914, according to his MIC. He is not mentioned in Ponsonby's list of officers at all, nor in the incomplete war diaries. In fact, according to his service record, he was attached to the 1/Grenadiers in 7th Division, but was almost immediately reattached to the 7th Cyclist Company. HIs MIC was therefore accurate, but there are no official and public papers to say where he went.

Mike

Thank you Mike. Interesting. A few diaries and histories record the officers of the Regiment that embarked with Brigade HQ Staff and support units, APMs etc. It still does not get us any closer to this imagined 35 for 1914. It may be that Westlake has included some of these in his numbers taken from published histories and that is the source of some of the slightly higher than war establishment figures we see.

[Muerrisch]

WOI 41 of 7 Aug 1914: my mss. notes ......... CADRES. each regular battalion at Home will send at once to its regimental depot the following for new units to be raised: capt x 1, subalterns x 2, serving sgts x 2, sgts and cpls to total 13 as drill instructors, these latter may be selected from reserve men who were formerly in these ranks.

that we knew, BUT I have now dug out

WOI 62 of 10 August: my mss. notes .....SURPLUS OFFICERS. Any officers of line battalions surplus to 26 for bn., 1 for first reinforcement and 3 for details at peace station should be sent to depot forthwith.

I read these as first stripping out three officers [regardless of remaining strengths] and secondly refining the number remaining to 26 + 1. Interestingly, there is no reference to an over-arching AO, nor of a change in WE, although units and superior formations read it as a change. Martin's evidence suggests strongly that the 7th August edict was indeed taken as a change in WE. Perhaps the 10th August version was to clarify the position? Certainly any unit sending 26 + 1 to F&F from 10th August, i.e. every line battalion, was in defiance of orders.

[Guest]

An interesting conundrum from the HQ 16th Inf Bde war diary: The embarkation roll shows 30 Officers for each battalion. At battalion level only one managed to record the Officers nominal roll in its diary - 1st Bn Leicestershire Regt which names 25 Officers including the MO on the embarkation roll. The published history unsurprisingly confirms the numbers and names (presumably based on the war diary)

The Buffs' history and war diary have no record of numbers

The KSLI history records 26 Officers (all named) plus the MO disembarking

The York & Lancaster history is one I don't have : ( nd the diary is probably the messiest in TNA's library.with 1914 spread over 4 years worth of diary.

At least 50% of the battalions have records that are at odds with the Brigade return, but perhaps illustrates just how tricky it is to be absolutely certain. MG

[Ron Clifton]

Martin

Have you forgotten that most units sent a small advance party on ahead to look for billets and so on? That might help to explain why some units seem to have been a few officers short when the main body landed.

Ron

[Guest]

Martin

Have you forgotten that most units sent a small advance party on ahead to look for billets and so on? That might help to explain why some units seem to have been a few officers short when the main body landed.

Ron

Ron

I am aware of this and on occasion billeting parties are mentioned. I certainly have not seen any billeting officers mentioned in any of the rolls. When listed, in most cases the Officers are named in specific roles in the HQ or as Company Officers. We know that some roles were duplicated - Transport Officer, Scout Officer - I can recall only one example where it was mentioned that an Officer had gone ahead and if memory served he was the Transport Officer. If you have evidence that billeting officers were separate (rather than double-hatted) and formed part of a battalion's War Establishment, or were supernumerary to the Battalion or the HQ Brigade Staff, I would be interested. I had always assumed that billeting officers were double-hatted i.e. one of the Officers had a secondary role.

That aside, for the purposes of the OP (trying to establish if 35-36 was ever War Establishment) I am very sure this figure is way off the mark.

MG

[Muerrisch]

With respect I think billeting officers are a red herring.

The four battalions sent as LoC troops [who later became 19 Bde] were tasked specifically with setting up bases ..... tented encampments for the main force, and this they did, on the back of the early parties mostly comprising ASC. As the EF grew, each division established an Infantry Base Depot. During all this phase, billeting officers would seem to be rather unnecessary ..... job usually done for them.

This was not the case later in the war of course .... the task often fell to the QM.

Evidence of billeting as a secondary task in the early days would be very interesting of course.

[Muerrisch]

Martin G. I have PM'd you please.

[Guest]

This is the strength figures of the 153rd Infantry Brigade (Territorials) for July 1916

Mike

[Ron Clifton]

Ron

...

If you have evidence that billeting officers were separate (rather than double-hatted) and formed part of a battalion's War Establishment, or were supernumerary to the Battalion or the HQ Brigade Staff, I would be interested. I had always assumed that billeting officers were double-hatted i.e. one of the Officers had a secondary role.

MG

Perhaps I should not have referred to billeting!

No, there were no billeting officers in that specific role. What I meant was that some officers went on ahead of the battalion to be shown the way and the facilities which had been allocated, and that as these men would probably have arrived a few days earlier and on a different ship, they might not have been included in some of the war diary figures which could have related to the "main body". This might account for the figures below the expected 30 which your research has uncovered.

The advance party, such as it was, would merely consist of officers who were part of the normal war establishment. When the main body arrived, they would simply rejoinder it and resume their normal roles.

Ron

[Guest]

Perhaps I should not have referred to billeting!

No, there were no billeting officers in that specific role. What I meant was that some officers went on ahead of the battalion to be shown the way and the facilities which had been allocated, and that as these men would probably have arrived a few days earlier and on a different ship, they might not have been included in some of the war diary figures which could have related to the "main body". This might account for the figures below the expected 30 which your research has uncovered.

The advance party, such as it was, would merely consist of officers who were part of the normal war establishment. When the main body arrived, they would simply rejoinder it and resume their normal roles.

Ron

For the first 5 Divs , I think billeting was done for them. The Army Troops and Corps Troops that eventually formed 19th Inf Bde and others such as the 1st Bn Cameron Highlanders I think did all the advanced work for the concentration of the EF. I don't see any evidence that advance parties from the core infantry Brigades happened. Disembarking at Le Havre most Battalions moved straight to the local camps or dossed down in the sheds on the quayside to get the train the next day. I really don't see any billeting requirements in the first days as the camps were already established and the staff at the Camps would be organised. I have seen evidence of Officers going ahead once on the ground, but not from the UK. In most cases the time from being ordered to embark to embarkation was less than a day, so in most cases there was no necessity and no opportunity.

The Brigade diaries often have very detailed logistics plans and movement orders, and again I don't see any evidence in these (24 separate Infantry Brigades). I will keep an open mind to this possibility and would be delighted to see any evidence. I have been wrong many times before.

MG

[Muerrisch]

I think my:

WOI 62 of 10 August: .....SURPLUS OFFICERS. Any officers of line battalions surplus to 26 for bn., 1 for first reinforcement and 3 for details at peace station should be sent to depot forthwith.

establishes beyond reasonable doubt that only 26 plus MO should have embarked,

and my #40 makes the point about "billetting" adequately. I just do not have any evidence that battalion advance parties were sent ahead in the first months of the war. The St John the Baptist function was performed by LoC troops and then by IBDs. Many units "slept" in cattle wagons, lucky to have straw, with packs as pillows.

[Guest]

This is the strength figures of the 153rd Infantry Brigade (Territorials) for July 1916

Mike

With 51 Officers one of these battalions had enough to lead every section. This is the most extraordinary table I have seen. I wonder if other Brigades in the same Division had similar numbers. It is unclear to me whether all these Officers are milling around in the trenches getting under the feet of competent NCOs.

I would be interested to see if there is anything in the Brigade routine orders instructing these battalions to increase the numbers of Officers

The history of the Black Watch show the 1/6th Bn with 31 Officers in June 1915 (photo with names opposite page 127 of Vol II). MG

[Guest]

I think it's the 5th Gordons, that, on the 31st July 1916 have 48 officers. the London Scottish had 46 on the same date.

I will have a look later to see if I can see any other information. I just downloaded the diary yesterday.

Mike

[Guest]

I have not found anything so far mentioning why officer numbers are so high (after a quick look) Another interesting table of strengths though, for 153rd Infantry Brigade August 1916. The 7th Gordons still have 40 or more officers. The other battalions much less, though this is after the attack on High Wood on the 30th July 1916.

Mike

[ss002d6252]

It's interesting that some battalions were running over with officers whilst others were running low.

151st brigade usually averages around 30 officers per battalion although the 6/8th did have 51 at one time (as a consequence of a temporary merger).

Craig

[Guest]

It's interesting that some battalions were running over with officers whilst others were running low.

Craig

I'm not sure if the 7th Gordons took part in the High Wood battle so perhaps they were spared the casualties? Will check.

Mike